Lockerbie bomber: the dark stain behind Megrahi's release

Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds following, it now transpires, a
meeting between Alex Salmond and representatives of the Qatar government,
observes Alan Conchrane.

6:06PM BST 03 Sep 2009

Have those of us who believed that there was no conspiracy, no dirty deal, no squalid 'arrangements’ over the release of the Lockerbie bomber been duped? The question arises as a dark stain appeared to be spreading over the SNP administration’s claims to a whiter-than-white approach to their sending Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi back to Libya to die.

It came when Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, claimed that the release may have been linked to detailed talks Alex Salmond had with the Qatari government over possible investment in the body being set up by the SNP to bankroll public works’ schemes – including the new Forth Road Bridge.

Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds on August 20, following, it now transpires, a meeting between First Minister Salmond and representatives of the Qatar government, including its minister for international co-operation and its ambassador in London.

Documents released by the Scottish Executive show that the Qataris, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Arab League, had written to Scottish ministers requesting Megrahi’s release. They also showed that Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who decided to free the bomber, wrote to the Qatari minister for international co-operation, business and trade only three days before he announced the compassionate release to tell him that a decision on Megrahi’s case was in its “final stages.”

Mr Salmond and his team insist that there is no 'linkage’ between any talks they may have had with the Qataris and Megrahi, whose compassionate release, they insist, was decided upon as part of due process. Mr Salmond also dismissed as “ ridiculous” the idea that the release was part of a deal over funding for the Scottish Futures Trust. The latter is the body that the SNP set up to fund public infrastructure projects as an alternative to the Private Finance Initiative, which the Nats say is too costly.

However, when I asked him whether his administration has asked the Qataris for financial support for the SFT, he replied: “ As a government we will always look to encourage trade from America, from Europe, from everywhere in the world.”

That reply is known in the inky trade as a non-denial denial in that it appears to, but doesn’t actually, answer the question. However, Mr Salmond went on to stress that his cabinet had agreed that any decision about Megrahi would be based on judicial grounds alone.

Which brings us back, of course, to the central questions as to whether Mr MacAskill decided to release Megrahi as an act of compassion as provided for by statute or whether he released him knowing that sending him back to Libya would help Mr Salmond attract inward investment from Qatar and, possibly, other Arab states?

The chapter of events emerging yesterday proved to be, to put it mildly, an unfortunate co-incidence of happenings but there is still no hard evidence to lead me to conclude anything other than it was as Mr MacAskill said it was – a compassionate decision taken by him and him alone, without his submitting to any extraneous pressure, commercial, political, diplomatic or otherwise.

It may be very tempting to agree with what one senior Labour business manager said: “ We know there was a crime and we also know who did it. We just haven’t found the dagger in the library, yet.”

But while the conclusion to continue to believe the Nats is not necessarily very comfortable for paid-up cynics like this one, I’m sticking to it. For now.

The clincher, as far as yesterday’s events were concerned, was the official minute of the meeting between Mr Salmond and the Qatari government representatives on June 11. This showed that whilst business and commercial matters were discussed, when the Megrahi case was raised, the First Minister explained that the matter was entirely one for the judicial process and the justice minister.

Alex Salmond deserves to be put firmly under the microscope after all of his gloating about what the Gordon Brown may or may not have been up to in relation to alleged dirty deals, involving oil and gas, with Libya.

In addition, we don’t yet know where this paper trail, which Miss Goldie says proves her accusation of “nudge and wink diplomacy”, will lead.

But, while the Tories had a good day and are correct to demand that everything be published in relation to Megrahi, it is also a fact that, like the man, said: “ It was close, but no cigar.”